Failure to Provide Cogent Explanation for Inordinate Delay Precludes Condonation of Limitation Under Section 5.

The State of Madhya Pradesh (Petitioners) filed a review petition against an order dated July 14, 2022, passed in W.P. No. 13380/2011.

The review petition was filed after a delay of 1286 days (approximately three years and five months).

The Petitioners filed I.A. No. 17468/2016 (later referred to as I.A. No. 4238/2026) seeking condonation of delay, citing administrative and procedural hurdles, the necessity of multi-level departmental scrutiny, and the discovery that the respondent's case stood on a distinct factual footing.

1. Whether the Petitioners demonstrated "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to warrant the condonation of a 1286-day delay in filing the review petition.

2. Whether the original order dated July 14, 2022, contained any clerical error or mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying a review.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the requirement of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

The court relied on Sheo Raj Singh (Dead) v. Union of India (2023) 10 SCC 531, which allows reasonable latitude for institutional procedural delays, and 2025 SCC OnLine SC 600, emphasizing that merits should not be defeated without reason if a genuine explanation exists.

The court applied the doctrine "delay defeats equity" from Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi AIR 2022 SC 332, asserting that the law assists the vigilant, not those who slumber over their rights.

The court found the Petitioners' explanation for the 1286-day delay to be "sketchy," "concocted," and lacking a reasonable basis.

While acknowledging the precedents cited by the State regarding a pragmatic approach toward governmental delays, the court determined that the State failed to act with due diligence. It reasoned that the delay was excessive (over three years) and that the administrative justifications did not constitute "sufficient cause".

Regarding the merits of the review, the court observed that since the original writ petition was decided on merits and lacked any clerical errors or obvious mistakes, the review jurisdiction could not be used to touch or reheat the merits of the case.

The Review Petition (R.P. No. 343/2026) was dismissed, as the court held that a review cannot be used to re-adjudicate a case decided on merits in the absence of a clerical error; all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.